'You don't need dictionary': Supreme Court questions Haryana SIT over FIRs against Ashoka University professor, relaxes bail conditions- Top quotes

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing Ali Khan Mahmudabad over a contentious social media post, asking it why the Ashoka University professor's gadgets were seized when the task was to examine the posts for language that may constitute offences listed in the FIR, something that required neither his presence, dictionary or his devices.

A bench led by Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta asked the SIT to confine its investigation strictly to the two FIRs registered against the professor and complete the probe within four weeks.

In a relief to Mahmudabad, the apex court relaxed one of his bail conditions , allowing him to write articles and share opinions as long as they do not relate to matters that are sub judice or under investigation in the two FIRs. Mahmudabad was arrested earlier this year for allegedly posting objectionable content on social media related to Operation Sindoor , which led to the registration of two FIRs against him. The Haryana SIT comprises three senior IPS officers: ADGP Mamta Singh, SP Karnal Ganga Ram Punia, and SP STF (Gurgaon) Vikrant Bhushan.

Top quotes

• "We are asking why SIT is, on the face of it, misdirecting itself? They were supposed to examine the contents of the posts," Justice Kant said.
• "It is open for the SIT to say that the contents of the FIRs does not disclose any offence, this case can be closed. It can always say that during the course of investigation, they have come across certain incriminating materials, which constitute separate offences and the law will take its own course," the bench told Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the SIT.
• "All you had to do was examine the posts, whether the expression, words or terminology constitute any offences alleged in the FIR. For that you do not need him, or a dictionary or his gadgets. We want to know for what purposes, these gadgets were seized?" the bench asked Raju.
• "We feel that the SIT has misdirected itself despite the mandate given in the May 28 order,"
• "There are two social media posts and two FIRs. The question is very simple. Which line and which word or expression constitutes an offence. This is what the SIT, being an expert body, has to find out," the bench said.